I was recently asked, "Do u like inter-office production quota style competitions as a way of motivating u? Do u like competing against ur team?" by my friend Travis Robertson. My response to him lies below.

Typically those who don't like individual results posted publicly (like most production quota style competitions), either don't feel competent for the task at hand (training gap or bad hire), don't feel the pride and ownership of the team (on-boarding or personal ownership issue), or prefer to avoid the accountability that such posting brings, hoping to skirt by (while looking busy) without reproach.

Team stats alone work great as a motivator when everyone on the team has an equal (or nearly equal) level of engagement, training, experience, and ownership of the outcome. With this singular data point model it is common to use individual stats privately as motivation to challenge individuals to improve based on their own prior performance. Which is logical, at first. In fact, this approach will work--for a time. But I have not found it sustainable through multiple iterations of a team. A culture of collaboration is much more effective, and long-lasting.

Focusing publicly on team stats alone ultimately breaks down because it relies too heavily on the "manager’s" ability to shed light on the individual results. All too often this method deteriorates when the manager either loses the time for individual motivational conversations (or fails to prioritize them) or doesn't have the skill necessary to identify and adapt his/her message to each team member’s ever changing individual motivations. A both/and approach is far more sustainable. As a leader of millennials, I have found that building a team of people committed to achieving a common team result is a motivator, but when a leader adds publicly displayed individual contributions as a part of the team culture, it fosters self-initiated coaching and collaboration.

If the team is strong, and trust has been established, individual results tell the story of the team result to each team member. It allows the team to own collaboration and development rather than a "manager" having to point out strengths and shortcomings. This allows the "manager" to become a leader, where his/her role centers more around inspiring and envisioning. There is still a part to play with coaching members of the team to foster trust, communication, and a healthy team environment. This model is sustainable long-term, which perpetuates the culture of the team and allows for true collaboration.

Each member of the team has different strengths and opportunities, the public posting of individual results allows each member to see who he/she can approach for help or best practices, and likewise, who he/she can proactively approach to provide best practices and offer support.The team must also recognize that not every person on the team need have the same strength or approach, provided the team result is achieved (I believe this is a significant change in the team approach of the millennial generation). This allows for a "soar with your strengths(StrengthsFinder 2.0) approach (where weaknesses are not central to one’s career development requiring a great deal of time and effort to overcome, but rather strengths are leveraged as an asset with the majority of time and effort spent using one’s strength).

These collaborations happen more organically and readily when team results are praised, and individual results are public, but not primarily compared to other team members for individual recognition. An example of this would be for the TEAM RESULT and GOAL to be included in a force ranked list. (See [completely made up] example below)

Typically there exists more than one metric (ie. sales $, lead generation, profitability, etc), so Stan will not be on the bottom of every list (otherwise there is surely a performance issue). This allows Sam to see he can help the team achieve the goal of 8, by helping Stan (Stu or Scott) raise his performance. Or, if the team is really communicating at a high level (recognizing each member's strengths and opportunities and leveraging them for overall team results), the members will recognize that if Scott and/or Stu increase their performance 1-2pts respective to the goal, the metric goal will be achieved, and Stan and Stu can soar in another metric area.Typically those who don't like their individual results posted publicly, either don't feel competent for the task at hand (training gap or bad hire), don't feel the pride and ownership of the team (on-boarding or personal ownership issue), or prefer to avoid the accountability that such posting brings, hoping to skirt by (while looking busy) without reproach.

What experiences have you had? Do inter-office production quota competitions motivate you? Or does collaboration with your team for a combined result motivate you?